BX 

7240 
J] 4- 







<r ^ r» 






■11 

C< C 



,c/ c 









'<■ C Cf^: 



crc cccr 

OCT dCcc 

decree; 



<iC Cc 






Ilibrary of congress. 



•cc-cTXC c :, 

^ C cc. CsC 

'L <- cc CCC 1 
^:x cc <(C . 

cccr vccc 
iccc mc 
<xcc < c 

S^CC 'C'-C 
L<cC cCjrC 
>.<cc CsC 
C-Ckcc <dC 
S: <Ecc <Ic. C 

[< C^^c C2 c 

r dct <r^ c 

c.. or ^r-c^'C- 

I dc ^jT C 
C.C<5C <C<&- d 



I J7Ac//ZDA 

f 

I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.!!^ 



c:<g:cc<r<r 
c;dciC^ 

CO c: 

< d?C ' 

^c<: i 

C:C" ' 

: <:<' •< 

I cc ^ 

I cc "■ 
_cc ■ 







^C<C COJr^ C C^CCC: C?c C 

^sjCcc^c:<iC&c:'c?c c 

Ci:<Cccc2l<:Cc:^c o:C-^ ^ v^ 

^c oc cc:i «tdcc dc o d; o <t 

dc orciKc^tc cjc odC' cc 
<:i^.c cc\ccc<£^f^cc:cccc:<r: <£; 

oc cc-'Cc:cA-<tA<i_<:i<- <^c ■<c <s 

C5C cc, - ^c Cc «■■ '<-c:<r.'CC<:Tc?">-" ^^ 

C5CCC. c cSxccCr^CTC'dCTC'- 
C«CC<3i<:«&> c«-<Kr<d^C Cjcc ' 

-cc<xl<s. cxc (iCcK <C <rcc^ ■ 















CCCCi ^ 












<jcr ci^'cCC- <^< 






c:.<x< 






ceres: 



cz<^ 



<1 CKc?^ 









CO <3 

c:<:c' c: < 



/ 



/>-M-^<>' 



s.(^. a^^/^^ 




\CJt^ ^n^ Q^^^^ 










THE 



CHURCH POLITY OF THE PILGRBIS 



THE POLITY OF 



THE NEW TESTAMENT. 



BY 



HENRY M. DEXTER. 



WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY HON. R. A. CHAPMAN, 

CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS. 



BOSTON : 

CONGREGATIONAL PUBLISHING SOCIETY. 

1870. 




/. 



^p\fi( 



[FIFTY COPIES PRINTED.] 



\ 



INTRODUCTION. 



Boston, June 30, 1870. 
My Dear Sir, — When the articles containing the 
substance of this little work were first published in " The 
Congregationalist and Recorder," I read them with much 
interest, and expressed to you a hope that they might be 
re-published in a more permanent form. The practical 
importance of the subject of church government and pol- 
ity appears to me to be vastly greater than many people 
seem to suppose. Congregational government is radically 
different from hierarchy in any of its forms. The former 
regards the members of a Christian church as capable of 
managing the affairs of the church : while the latter re- 
gards them as incompetent to manage those affairs ; not 
capable of deciding upon the admission, discipline, or ex- 
pulsion of their fellow-members, nor of maintaining fel- 
lowship with other churches. It, therefore, reduces them 
to the condition of a governed class; their duty being sim- 
ply to obey the hierarchy, whose competency to govern 
them is assumed. You have shown which of these sys- 

iii 



IV 



terns of government is in conformity with the teachings 
of the New Testament. And if we go farther back, and 
consider the fundamental object of Christianity, we are 
led to the same result. Christ's purpose manifestly was 
to renovate and elevate mankind by acting upon them in- 
dividually. He taught the value of man as an individual ; 
exposed the true character of the evil that is in him and 
tends to degrade him ; and his plan of renovation begins 
with faith in himself personally, and proceeds with attach- 
ment and obedience to himself. The organization and 
observances which he prescribed to his followers were 
very simple ; and as the preservation and propagation of 
his system were to be not by coercion, but, so far as man's 
agency is concerned, principally by teaching and example, 
very little of church government was needed, and that lit- 
tle could be managed by a local assembly. He regarded 
all men as brethren, and all of them erring and sinful ; 
but the sin towards which he manifested a special detesta- 
tion was the lust and abuse of official power. 

The tendency of a hierarchy would naturally be adverse 
to his system ; and knowing how strong the lust of power 
is in the human heart, and foreseeing its effects, we should 
naturally expect that he would give a solemn command, 
like that which he gave when he spoke of the exercise of 
lordship and authority by princes and great men among 
the Gentiles, and peremptorily declared, " So shall it not be 



among you." It was addressed to those who were to be 
the teachers and preachers of his system ; and, had it been 
obeyed after the days of the apostles, the tendency would 
have been to purify and ennoble that class of his followers, 
by saving thera from the degrading temptation to claim 
lordship and authority over their brethren. 

Our ancestors came here fresh from the experience of 
hicrarchal oppression and cruelty. Their ministers were 
learned men, and well acquainted with ecclesiastical his- 
tory. They knew how early the lust of power began to 
operate upon Christian ministers, and how it grew till the 
prominent feature of ecclesiastical history, through all 
the intervening ages, had become a history of the oppres- 
sion and degradation of the laity by the hierarchy. It is 
a frightful history for a layman to read. 

Hierarchy had been a blight upon human liberty and 
progress, and upon Christianity itself. They knew that 
its authority rested upon tradition ; and therefore they 
went behind tradition, to the New Testament itself. 
There they found, as you find, popular sovereignty ; and, 
renouncing all claim to lordship and authority, they 
taught their brethren their rights and their duties in this 
respect. The introduction of this new system of govern- 
ment gave not only a new position, but naturally tended 
to give a new elevation of character, to the brethren. 
They were no longer mere subjects, living under the die- 



▼1 



tation of office-holders, but themselves possessed the rights 
of sovereignty. As the New Testament expresses it, 
the^^ were " a royal priesthood,^' not subject to a human 
priest; "kings and priests unto God," having equal 
rights among themselves ; and this is the very essence of 
a pure democracy. 

Attached to the rights of this common sovereignty are 
its dignity, its responsibilities, and its duties ; and a 
religious regard for them tends to elevate men towards 
their highest capabilities. It teaches them the need of 
universal education. Thus it originated the common 
school, which put education under the control of the 
people. It fits them for self government, and thus it 
led to the establishment of our civil government based 
on popular sovereignty. It is hostile to every form of 
monarchy and aristocracy, as tending to degrade the 
people. It lays the foundations of popular civil govern- 
ment in religious principle, and supplies restraints 
against wrong-doing, which human government is in- 
capable of supplying, — the Bible being, in fact, the text- 
hook of civil liberty. It trains the members of the 
church to the exercise of the rights of sovereignty, in 
the management of their business, in a Christian spirit of 
charity, forbearance, and deference to the opinions and 
feelings of others, instead of a spirit of wilfulness, con- 
ceit, and selfishness ; a training which is of incalculable 



Vll 



value to any citizen in a popular government. And it 
elevates the ministry to a higher class of duties than 
those helonging to dictation and coercion, and tends to 
purify and ennoble them. 

It is not necessary to speak in commendation of its in- 
fluence upon the character and destiny of this country. 
The Cambridge Platform, notwithstanding the defect 
noticed by you, preserved the essence of popular sov- 
ereignty, by leaving not only the choice of officers, but 
the admission, discipline, and expulsion of members, and 
maintaining fellowship with " neighbor churches,'' and, 
indeed, all the business of the church, in the hands of the 
people ; but, unfortunately, in later times there arose, in 
the minds of some of the influential ministers, a want of 
confidence in the capacity of the people, and a desire for 
official authority and dictation ; and this led to a neglect of 
instruction as to the duties of the people in maintaining 
self-government, and the spirit in which these duties 
should be discharged. Experience has shown that these 
men made a mistake, and I believe your discussion of the 
subject will do great good. 

Yours very respectfully, 

R. A. CHAPMAN. 

Rev. H. M. Dexter, D.D. 



TEE CHUECH POLITY OP TSE PILGEIMS 



THE 



POLITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 



The Plymouth Pilgrims were stigmatized 
as " Brownists ; " but the careful student of 
their actual belief and practice will more 
likely conclude, not only that they were Con- 
gregationalists, but that the current Congre- 
gationahsm of the United States now repro- 
duces much more exactly that which they 
held, and which John Robinson so ably ex- 
pounded, than it does the not quite semi- 
Presbyterianism of Cotton's '' Keyes," and of 
the " Cambridge Platform." In the matter of 
what they called Ruling Elders, and in some 
other minor details, — which were mainly due 
to some disproportionate stress laid by them 
upon certain passages of Scripture, upon 
which time and experience superinduced a 



truer exposition, — there were slight differ- 
ences between them and those churches of 
the same order which exist to-day. But, in 
all great essentials, they and their spiritual 
children are one. The Articles of Faith of 
Henry Ainsworth's Brownist Church at 
Amsterdam, in 1596, would need but few 
words of alteration to make them fit the 
average needs, and uses, of the Congrega- 
tional churches of to-day. 

The difference between the original Con- 
gregationalism of the Massachusetts and the 
Plymouth colonies seems to have been 
largely due to the fact, that those who 
thought out the latter, went to the Bible 
under the one controlling idea that the 
Church of England, as then existing, had de- 
parted from the Word; and with the one 
controlling purpose to recover, if possible, 
the exact primitive and apostolic method ; 
and with no particular bias toward one re- 
sult rather than another: while the former 
approached the Bible with the design of ex- 
pounding its teachings indeed, but with so 
decided a prejudice against the then so 



disreputable Separatist or Brownist views, 
that it was nearly morally certain that their 
exegesis could, only in the last extremity be 
driven to that fall result. And it was not 
strange that " the speaking aristocracy in the 
face of a silent democracy " of Samuel Stone, 
and Cotton's doctrine of the power of the 
elders, " with consent of the brethren," 
should have been resorted to by them in the 
endeavor to avoid an immediate plunge into 
that absolute democracy, which, both for 
Church and State, was as much an object of 
dread in those days in Boston and the towns 
of the Bay, as it was practically trusted, and 
found salubrious, in the humbler and older 
" Old Colony." 

That which is simple, natural, and unforced 
is apt to abide when that which is adroit, and 
done for a transitory purpose, fails to suit 
and satisfy the exigencies of the ages. So 
that it is no strange thing which has hap- 
pened, that the Congregational churches of 
New England have gradually worked them- 
selves clear from the aristocratic elements 
which modified the beginnings of so many 



6 



of them ; ignored, and quietly left to fall into 
disuse, the Presbyterianisli principles which 
found their way into the Cambridge, and 
which gave form and force to the Saybrook, 
platform ; and have practically come to their 
permanent bearings upon the solid, earth- 
centering rock of democracy, — never bet- 
ter defined than unconsciously in that won- 
derful compact signed in the cabin of the 
Mayflower, as a combination into a '^ body 
politick for our better ordering, preservation, 
and furtherance of y^ ends [sought therein] , 
and by vertue hearof to enacte, constitute, 
and frame such just & equall lawes, ordi- 
nances, acts, constitutions, & offices, from 
time to time, as shall be thouo-ht most meete 
& convenient for y® generall good ; — unto 
which we promise all due submission and 
obedience." 

When reduced to its first principles, gov- 
ernment must either lodge its power in one 
ruler, or in all who are ruled, or — between 
these extremes — in a ruling class ; and so 
it must be essentially either monarchy, or 
democracy, or aristocracy. Congregation- 



alism is democracy applied to church affairs. 
It holds Christ to be supreme, and under him 
it vests ecclesiastical power in the associated 
brotherhood of local churches ; which are 
bound to maintain a family relation of frater- 
nity and counsel, yet which are in them- 
selves self-complete and independent. 

These three systems of polity — the de- 
mocracy of Congregationalism, the aristoc- 
racy of Presbyterianism, and the monarchy 
of Episcopacy * — are scarcely sufficiently 
alike, either in principles or processes, to run 
much risk of being confounded with each 
other ; so that, if the New Testament says 

* " The Hartford Churchman " of 22d May, 1869, contains 
an elaborate argument designed to prove, that, so far from being 
a monarchic government. Episcopacy more nearly represents 
the democracy of our Republic than any other polit}^ And 
this because the Governor of the Commonwealth and the 
Bishop of a diocese are both " chosen by the votes of their 
peers." But the essential feature of monarchy is in the 
fact, that, however elected, the monarch rules; and the 
essential feature of republicanism is, that, through their 
elected officers, the people rule. And it requires but the 
slightest acquaintance with the facts to settle it, on this rule, 
that Episcopacy is not republicanism, whatever else it may 
be ; and that Congregationalism is republicanism itself, in re- 
ligion. 



8 



any thing at all about church polity, either in 
the way of describing such of its activities as 
make themselves matters of its history, or of 
laying down any precepts whatsoever with 
regard to it, it would seem to be quite a 
thing impossible that the careful student of 
it should be left in doubt whether the 
churches which the apostles founded, and to 
whom the Epistles were addressed, were, in 
the main and characteristically. Congrega- 
tional, Presbyterian, or Episcopal churches. 

We undertake an examination of the New 
Testament with this inquiry in mind. We 
mean to glance at every passage in it wdiicli 
casually, or carefully, refers in any manner to 
church action and government. And, if we 
have not been wholly misled in our investi- 
gations of the Word, we shall be conducted, 
by such an examination, to the conclusion 
that the Congregational polity of our Pilgrim 
Fathers, which they reverently deduced from 
it, is the polity of the New Testament. 



CHAPTER I. 

CONGREGATIONALISM IN THE GOSPELS. 

Now, then, we approach the question, what 
kind of church life and action, as a matter 
of fact, is to be found suggested in the way 
of precept, and recorded in the way of prac- 
tice, in the New Testament ? Did Christ, so 
far as he prompted any form of church-life, 
prepare the minds of his apostles for the dem- 
ocratic, the aristocratic, or the monarchic 
polity ? And were tliose earUest churches, 
whose history, with more or less of detail, it 
gives or hints, characterized by the essential 
peculiarities of the Congregational, Presby- 
terian, or Episcopal systems ? That is the 
question, — one would think susceptible of 
easy and unerring answer. 

That answer, it is fair to say here, is 
rendered less obvious, however, to the merely 
English reader of the New Testament than 
it need be in a perfectly accurate translation ; 
than it would have been if Kino; James's 



10 



translators liad not sometimes modified 
earlier versions in the interest of Episcopacy, 
nor sometimes, without crowding the sense 
harder than it will honestly bear, in the direc- 
tion of prelacy.* 

We propose in this chapter a rapid glance 
at all those passages in the four Gospels 
which make reference, either in the way of 

* The translation by them of the word Trdaxa (pass&ver) 
by "Easter" (Actsxii:4); of the word kTZLaKonriv {office) 
by *' bishoprick " (Acts i: 20); of the word £7ri(7/c67roi'^ by 
"bishop" in several passages of the Epistles, when they had 
rendered it simply " overseers " in Acts xx: 28; of as many 
as seven different Greek words {diaTaaoio^ 1 Cor. vii: 17; 
KudLGrr/iLitj Tit. i: 5, Heb. viii: 3; Kpivco^ Acts xvi: 4; nocecj, 
Mark iii: 14; racrcrw, Rom. xiii: 1; ndrjf^t, 1 Tim. ii: 7; and 
XSLpOTOvecj^ Acts xiv: 23), neither one of which properly 
signifies what general readers naturally understand by the 
term, by the phrase *' ordain," — are examples of what is here 
meant. So Acts xiv: 23 retained in the English versions, 
until the hand of Episcopal authority struck it out, the recog- 
nition of the action of the membership of the churches in the 
choice of their elders. Tyndale (1534) reads, "And when 
they had ordened them Elders by eleccion in every congrega- 
tion." Cranmer (1539) reads, " And when they had ordened 
them elders by eleccion in every congregacion." The 
Genevan (1557), " And when they had ordeined them elders 
by election in every church." The authorized version (1611) 
struck out this reference to the people, and made the act 
that of the apostles alone, &c. 



11 



precept or example, direct or indirect, near or 
remote, to the subject of clmrch government ; 
of course, with comment of the most brief 
and condensed description. 

And, in proceeding, it is needful to remem- 
ber, that our Lord left the work of finishing 
to be done by the apostles, under the superin- 
tendence of the Holy Spirit. This was true 
in the vitalest matters of theology. Jesus 
planted the seeds, they ripened the fruit. 
It was necessary for him to die before the 
great central doctrine of the Atonement 
could be seen by them in its true aspect, as 
the propitiation for their sins, and not for 
theirs only, but also for the sins of the whole 
world ; and before those other doctrines 
which grow out of it, and depend upon it, 
could assume their logical place, and take on 
their relative force. So, also, in the matter 
of the church, and of church-life, Christ 
contented himself with makino; a few suix- 
gestions, — commands in spirit but not in 
form, — and laying do\Tn a general princi- 
ple, with a single rule, leaving it for the 
apostles to carry them out to their necessary 



12 



conclusions, while he should guide them in 
the work of laying church foundations, wdien 
the time came for it, by his supervising 
Spirit. As, moreover, the matter of church 
form must necessarily be among those things 
reached, if reached at all, only in the closing 
stages of his career, we ought to expect to 
find very few, if any, references to it in the 
four Gospels. 

It so happens that the first word which is 
reached in tlie harmonized New Testament, 
which seems to have any flavor of ecclesias- 
ticism about it, is one (Mark iii: 14) which 
illustrates the criticism we have made upon 
King James's translators as sometimes, for 
substance, corrupting tlie text in the interest 
of Episcopacy. They tell us that Jesus 
'' ordained twelve, that they should be with 
him ; " and so forth. 

This, if it were correct, would not mean 
much, but would sound about as, Episco- 
pally, it ought to sound. The Greek word 
is Ttoim Qpoied^. This is employed four or 
five hundred times in the New Testament, 
and always in the sense of either " to make " 



13 



or " to do," — as it is used to imply action as 
being completed or continued. In no other 
instance does our common version translate 
it " ordain." It means here simply " to 
make to become ;" that is, to ap]Joint. Tyn- 
dale (A.D. 1380) renders it, ''And he 
made that there weren twelue with hym." 
The Genevan version (A.D. 1557) gives it, 
'' And he appoynted twelue, that they should 
be with hym." Even the Romanist Rheims 
version (A.D. 1582) has it, " And he mado 
that twelue should be with him." It is 
curious to notice, also, in this connection, 
how the authors of the common version else- 
where strained another verb in the same 
direction. They represent Christ (John xv : 
16) as saying to the twelve, '' I have chosen 
you, and ordained you, that ye should go and 
bring forth fruit," and so forth. The Greek 
word here is xldr^iii (titliemi^^ which means 
" to set," '' to put," and so also " to put to 
some certain use," and hence " to appoint." 
It is used ninety-six times in the New Testa- 
ment, and has always been rendered in one 
of those senses, or in one directly secondary 



14 



to them, except here, and in 1 Tim. ii : 7, in 
both of which they have translated it " or- 
dained ;" and this although in 2 Tim. i: 11 
precisely the same Greek words are made 
to read, '' Whereunto I am appoirded a 
preacher." 

We find one class of texts in the Evan- 
gelists, from the lips of our Saviour, which 
inculcates very strongly the general princi- 
ple of the equal brotherhood of believers. 
This class is represented by such passages as 
those (Matt, xviii : 1-14, Mark ix : 83-50, 
Luke ix : 46-50) wdiere the question who 
should be greatest was discussed by the 
disciples, and answered by our Lord's putting 
a little child in the midst of them and saying, 
^' He that is least among you all, the same 
shall be great;" by those (such as Matt. 
XX : 1-16) which declare that even those 
who come in at the eleventh hour shall re- 
ceive equal wages, without wrong to those 
who have borne the heat and burden of the 
day ; by those like that (Matt, xx : 20-28, 
Mark x : 35-45) which replies to the request 
of the mother of Zebedee's children, by 



15 



teaching that tlie true primacy is that of 
doing most, rather than of ruhng most, or 
liaving most ; those which (like Matt, xxiii : 
1-12) rebuke the assumptions of the Phari- 
sees, and the aristocracy of their spirit; and 
that (John xiii : 1-20) which pictures the 
Lord as washing the disciples' feet, to teach 
them humility and fraternity. 

It is not, of course, pretended that there 
is any direct development here of distinc- 
tively Congregational teaching ; but only that 
all this points that w^ay, is more harmonious 
with it than w^ith its opposites, and is what 
w^ould be most naturally to be expected, if 
our Lord had that system in mind, as that 
into which his Spirit should eventually guide 
believers. We certainly do maintain, that 
wlien Jesus said to his disciples, '' The 
princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion 
over them, and they that are great exercise 
authority upon them ; but it shall not be so 
among you^'' etc. ; and when he commanded 
them, " Be not ye called Rabbi, for one is 
your master, even Clu'ist, and all ye are 
brethren; neither be ve called masters, for 



16 



one is your master, even Christ," etc., he 
laid down a theory of social and churcli life 
which it is next to impossible to realize, ex- 
cept by the Congregational way. 

We next come to the one law which our 
Saviour did enact on this subject ; and we 
are prepared to maintain that this cannot be 
kept, in perfect good faith, by any other sys- 
tem of church order than our own. This 
(Matt, xvii : 15-18) is the permanent stat- 
ute of church disciphne. '' Moreover, if thy 
brother shall trespass against thee, go and 
tell him his fault between thee and him 
alone ; if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained 
thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, 
then take with thee one or two more, that, in 
the mouth of two or three witnesses, every 
word may be established. And if he shall 
neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church; 
but, if he neglect to hear the church, let him 
be unto thee as an heathen man and a publi- 
can." Here we claim that the telling to 
the church (1) cannot be done under the 
Romanist or Episcopal system, because 
neither the Pope, nor the College of Cardi- 



17 



nals, nor any Archbishop or Bench of Bish- 
ops, nor General Convention, can be '' tlie 
church " in tlie sense demanded here ; and 
the local congregation, which is tlie only one 
to whom the tellino; can be done, is utterly 
without power to act with regard to it ; nor 
(2) can it be done under the Methodist sys- 
tem, for a like reason ; nor (3) under the 
Presbyterian system, for that their ''judica- 
tory " comes in between the individual and 
the church, and makes it literally impossible 
for him to obey Christ's command. " The 
church" (I-Aylricia — eMZefsm) here means the 
local body of believers with which the party 
is connected. It cannot mean any thing else. 
Even Alford (Dean of a High Church) is 
constrained to testify here, " That ehklesia 
cannot mean the church, as represented by 
her rulers, appears by verses 19, 20, where 
any collection of believers is gifted with the 
power of decidmg such cases." And he is 
honest enough to add, " Nothing could be 
further from the spirit of our Lord's com- 
mand than proceedings in what are oddly 
enough called ' ecclesiastical courts.' " And 
a 



18 



Lange says, " The term ekJdesia must always 
be understood as referring to the Christian 
church, or to tlie meeting of believers, 
whether it be large or small. . . . Ro- 
man-Catholic interpreters are entirely in 
error in explaining the passage, ' Tell it to 
the bishops.' " 

That this is tlie true exposition of the 
word '' church " * here becomes inevitable 
when we reflect that the very object of 
friendly labor with tlie offender by the mass 
of his neighbor believers, as supplementing 
the work of the '' two or three," and ten- 
derly aiming to quicken and guide his con- 
science, to persuade him that his accusation 
is no mere misjudgment on the part of a lit- 
tle knot of interested or j)rejudiced persons, 

* The Episcopalian suggestion, that, when this was 
spoken, there was no church in existence, and Christ must 
have meant the synagogue, which they insist was a very un- 
democratic institution, overlooks the fact that Christ was 
speaking for the future, when churches should exist ; while 
Paul's remark concerning the man who had been excom- 
municated (2 Cor. ii: 6), "Sufficient to such a man is this 
punishment, which was inflicted by themany " (i.e., the multi- 
tude of church members), shows that Christ's rule was dem- 
ocratically applied, under the oversight and with the approval 
of Paul himself. 



19 



but does indeed deserve liis gravest reconsid- 
eration, and call for his deepest penitence, 
must necessarily become thwarted by the 
substitution of any thing resembhng the pro- 
cess of a series of appellant tribunals with a 
remote and distant judgment upon his case; 
and this to that deizree as to be rendered abso- 
lutely impossible. 

We insist, then, that by enacting, as the 
permanent law of discipline for offences 
among his followers, one which can be 
thoroughly and loyally carried out by the 
Congregational system, and cannot be so ap- 
plied by any other, our Saviour did in sub- 
stance ordain the democratic, as the true 
polity for his church. 

It remains, under this part of our subject, 
only to notice the fact that the idea of the 
essential fashion of the future Christian 
church having been thus substantially de- 
creed by Christ, as we have seen that it had 
already been hinted in spirit by him, his sub- 
sequent important utterances conformed 
themselves to the same conception. This 
was especially the fact in ( Jolm xvii : 1-26) 



20 



his last prayer for his followers ; in (Matt, 
xxvi : 26-29 ; Mark xiv : 22-25 ; Luke xxii : 
19, 20) his formula of institution for the 
Lord's Supper ; and (Matt, xxviii : 18-20 ; 
Mark xvi : 15, 16 ; Luke xxiv : 36, 49 ; 
John XX : 21-23) his last command. With 
genuine and profound respect for the various 
excellences of our sister denominations, we 
do yet most earnestly believe, and most 
respectfully urge, that no polity so fully as 
ours is able to accord with and promote the 
spirit of that divine and loving oneness and 
brotherhood for which the Saviour prayed ; 
while his last command, addressed, not to 
any hierarch, or bench of bishops, but to the 
company of his followers, as a fraternity of 
equal individuals, who are commanded to " go 
preach," befits our system better than any 
other : and our churches are the only ones 
which are able, with verbal accuracy ex- 
actly to copy, in the Eucharist, the words 
and deeds of its first institution, as Inspira- 
tion has preserved them " for our learning." 
One passage only, of a seeming contrary 
to all these, remains to be examined. It is 



21 



that (Matt, xvi : 18) in which Christ says 
to Simon, '' Thou art Peter, and upon this 
rock I will build my church," etc. At first 
glance, this does look as if Peter were ap- 
pointed to some special foundation w^ork for 
the church above lus brethren, and to give 
some slight color to the Romish claim of the 
primacy of this apostle, continued — as they 
allege — by transfer to the Popes of Rome. 
It is an obscure passage, and has been very 
variously interpreted. Some, like Augus- 
tine, Jerome, and others, have referred the 
''rock" to Christ himself; but this seems 
forced. Some, like the majority of the 
Fathers, with Huss and Luther, have re- 
ferred it to Peter's confession of faith in 
Christ's Messiahship ; but this seems scarcely 
warranted by the facts of the case. Some, 
like Origen, have applied it to Peter as the 
representative of believers in general ; but 
this is labored and unsatisfactory. Lange 
explains the expression as generalizing, so to 
speak, the individual Peter into what might 
be called the petrine characteristic of the 
church ; viz., faithfulness of confession, as 



22 



first distinctly exhibited by Peter : but this 
seems wire-drawn and fanciful. It remains 
frankly to understand it as spoken of Peter 
himself in his own proper person, but not, in 
the Popish sense of Baroniusand Bellarmine, 
as investing him with any primacy ; nor, witii 
some Romanists, and many Protestants like 
Bengel and Crusius, of any speciality in 
Peter's work as an apostle ; but simply to 
understand our Saviour assaying, " Thou art 
Peter (a rock') ; and upon this rock-quality 
(this boldness and firmness of character, 
this solid fitness for service in the difficult 
work of winning men to the gospel) I will 
build my church." And this interpretation, 
while it satisfies the exigences of the sense, 
is borne out by the fact that Peter was first 
to preach Christ to both Jews (Acts ii : 14^ 
and (Acts x : 34) Gentiles.* 

Reasonably considered, then, this passage 

* We are happy to have pood Episcopal indorsement of 
our judgment of this text. " The Hartford Churchman " of 22d 
May, 1869, in a free criticism upon the general view presented 
in this chapter, was careful to say tliat it neither had, nor 
saw the need of having, any controversy with us as to this 
explanation of this passage concerning Peter and the rock. 



23 



in no sense contradicts or modifies those 
teachings of fraternal equality among his fol- 
lowers, which Christ had before solemnlj^ 
announced. 

So far, then, as the Gospels are concerned, 
w^e maintain, that as Jesus was the visible and 
only head of his church so long as he re- 
mained on earth, and besides him there was 
no superiority and no ruling, but all were 
brethren, equal in rights, however unequal in 
their work or their renown ; so it was his 
theory and purpose in regard to the subse- 
quent development of his church for all the 
ages, himself to remain, though ascended, its 
invisible yet real and only head, its mem- 
bership standing permanently on the same 
broad platform of essential equality and 
brotherhood, and its otfices being offices of 
service and not of rulino-. 



CHAPTER II. 

CONGREGATIONALISM IN THE ACTS OF THE 
APOSTLES. 

Having examined those hints and fore- 
shado wings of church government which 
are contained in the four Gospels, and the 
one fundamental law of church discipline in 
them laid down by Christ himself; and 1 

havino; reached the conclusion that the 
theory which best harmonizes all, and the 
only one which offers to that^law its normal 
and complete development, is tliat he had 
from the beginning the democratic polity in 
mind, and intended to prepare the way for 
its practical establishment, so soon as, after 
his crucifixion and ascension, the fulness of 
time for it should come, — it is next in order 
to proceed to an examination of the Acts of 
the Apostles, in the endeavor to determine 
what kind of churches under the guidance 
of the Holy Ghost, were actually formed by 
those first laborers, and what were their con- 
ditions. 

24 



I 



25 



1. And the first passage wlilch we find 
bearing upon the subject is that giving, in 
the first chapter (verses 15-26), the account 
of the choice of an apostle in place of Judas. 
Here the main points of interest are the 
facts, that, although Peter was spokes- 
man and leader of the eleven, he assumed 
no such primacy as would fill the vacant 
apostolate, nor intimated that the eleven 
collectively had power to fill it ; but sub- 
mitted the matter to the whole church then 
present, of one hundred and twenty mem- 
bers, telling them that from those who were 
competent, '' one must be made " (not 
'' ordained") " a witnesse of his resurexcioun 
with us," as Wiclif rightly translated it; that 
the church then (literally) " selected to stand 
up as candidates," two ; and then, recogniz- 
ing Christ, who had chosen all of the eleven, 
to be their still existing, though risen. Mas- 
ter and Head, they prayed him to indicate, 
by the lot, which of the two he preferred ; 
which resulted in the designation of Matthias. 
There is no mistaking this. Even Chrysostom 
says, " Peter did every thing here w^ith the 



26 



common consent ; nothino- by his own Avill 
and authority. He left the judgment to the 
multitude, to secure their respect to the 
elected, and to fi'ee himself from every invidi- 
ous reflection. He did not himself appoint the 
two ; it was the act of all." * While only the 
germs of any system are here developed, it 

is clear that these are essentially democratic 

t/ 

in their character. 

2. It is next noticeable, that (ii : 1, 3, 4) 
the gift of the Holy Spirit was not confined 
to apostles or disciples, but was shared by 
every member. "All were with one accord 
in one place ; " and " it sat upon each of 
them ; " and " they were all filled with the 
Holy Ghost." This sounds very little like 
the language of the Episcopal church, which 
represents the bishop as laying his hands upon 
the head of the candidate for the priesthood, 
saying, " Receive the Holy Ghost," but 
which has no such word to utter in the ear 
of its candidates for confirmation, and the 
Lord's table. 

3. The next passage which attracts atten- 

* Bom, ad Act 1, 25. 



27 



tion, as having indirect relation to this ques- 
tion of polity, is that (ii: 44, 45, interpreted by 
iv: 32, 34) which refers to the social life of the 
believers in Jerusalem, in the opening stage 
of the existence of the Christian church. 
They '' were together ; " that is, they met in 
the same place, — which is one radical fea- 
ture of a Cono;reo;ational church, in distinc- 
tion from the Presbyterian or Episcopal 
theories of a o-reat oro;anic all-embracino; 
church, which, as a church, can never be 
together, but which can only meet in sep- 
arate cono;reo;ations, no one of which is a 
church by and in itself; and they " held 
all things as common," which, being compared 
with and interpreted by the subsequent pas- 
sage,, implies not community of goods, as has 
often been supposed, but the most democratic 
sharing of tlie property which they individu- 
ally owned with each other.* No one called 
the things wliich he possessed his own ; that 

* " Does this description of a community of goods im- 
ply that a general custom admitting of no exceptions pre- 
vailed, so that every individual (not indeed compelled by a 
law, but in a voluntary manner) sold all his real estate, and 
placed the proceeds at the disposal of the church ? If, ac- 



28 



is, no one retained possession of his property 
in a selfish, secluding spirit, which allowed 
others no benefit from it ; but, on the con- 
trary, they had all things common, that is, 
employed all things in such a manner as to 
supply the wants of all. What we claim 
here is, that such a record as this connects 
itself much more naturally with our own, 
than with any antagonist polity. 

4. Next we come (iv ; 23-33) to the 
action of Peter and John, wdien, for the 
good deed done to the impotent man, they had 
been arrested, imprisoned, reprimanded, and 
dismissed. When thus let go, they went '' to 
their own ; " that is, not to the apostles and 
disciples, but to their own church company : 

cording to verse thirty-two, not one declared that any of the 
things which he possessed was his own, this language un- 
questionably implies that his proprietorship remained undis- 
turbed {hoc ipso prcesuppositur, proprietatem possessionis non 
plane fuisse deletem).''^ — Bengel, in loco. 

" This passage can by no means be so interpreted as to 
lead legitimately to the conclusion that it was the universal 
custom of the members (voluntarily observed, indeed, but 
still not neglected in a single case), to surrender the whole 
amount of their real estate for the benefit of poor members. 
Indeed, the special case which is now adduced leads to the 
opposite conclusion." — Lange (Lechler) in loco. 



29 



for when they had made tlieir report to the 
church, til en they all prayed, apparently with 
one voice as well as one spirit ; and, when 
their prayer was done, they were all filled 
with the Holy Ghost ; and (the record runs 
on without any break) this " mass " (to rtlr^do^ 
■ — to loletlios) of believers had one heart and 
one soul, and great grace was upon them 
all; that is, as Lange (Lechler) says, ''not 
on the apostles only, but on all the believers." 
This procedure was wholly natural, if sub- 
stantial Congregationalism was their type of 
church-life ; wholly unnatural, if not almost 
incredible, on any other supposition. 

6. The choice of the seven helpers (vi : 
1-6) next claims our consideration. Diffi- 
culty arose between the Hellenist and the 
Hebrew portions of the church, because of 
what the former thought an unequal distri- 
bution of the daily dole ; whereupon the 
twelve called together (xo nlridog — toplethos^ 
the mass of the church, stated the case to 
them, and told them (1) what they did not 
desire, — to leave preaching to serve tables ; 
(2) what they did desire, — to continue to 



30 



minister the word ; with the outgrowing 
proposition to the church to choose seven 
fit men to attend to the secularities. This 
proposition pleased the (xd 7t)S]dog — to pie- 
tliosy mass of the churcli ; an,d it selected out 
Stephen and his six associates, and presented 
them to the apostles, w4io set them apart to 
their work by prayer, and the laying their 
hands upon them. This, taken in all its 
parts, was a thoroughly Congregational pro- 
cedure ; radically such, and irreconcilable 
with anv other than the democratic form of 
church government. 

6. AVhat took place on occasion of the 
first persecution (viii : 1-4) is next in 
order. It immediately followed the martyr- 
dom of Stephen ; and the result of it was 
to banish to the surroundino; remons of 
Judaea, and to Samaria, even as far as to 
Phoenicia, and Cyprus, and Antioch, the 
great majority of the members of the Church 
at Jerusalem, with the exception of the apos- 
tles. But it is expressly said that these fleeing 
believers " went everywhere preaching the 
word." These were private Christians, every 



31 



one ; dotlied with no ecclesiastical function, 
and invested only witli that general priesthood 
wliich Congreorationalism, in accordance with 
the word (1 Pet. ii : 5-9), assigns to all 
believers ; and yet the term here used to 
designate the manner of that labor is pre- 
cisely that (ftJa-'j'e^xco — euanggelizo) wdiicli, 
twenty-two verses after, describes the preach- 
ing of Peter and Jolin in Samaria ; which 
Paul employed (1 Cor. i : 17) to announce 
his special function of preacliing the gospel ; 
and which he uses nearly twenty times in 
the Epistles, in that connection. Nor is this 
all. In the second reference to the same 
thing (xi : 19, 20), tlie idea is repeated in 
another form ; a synonyme being used [hclsco 
— laleo)^ which is afterward more than once 
employed to designate the preaching of Paul 
and Barnabas, as it liad been before used 
(Mark ii : 2), of the preaching of Christ 
himself. Thus '' the preacliing of Jesus to 
the Greeks in Antioch and elsewhere," savs 
Lange, '' was effected not by Peter, nor by 
any other apostle, but by ordinary Christians 
and church-members." If these were all 



32 



substantially Congregatlonalists, this is a per- 
fectly natural record ; if they were any thing 
else, it becomes not merely abnormal, but 
surprising. 

7. The circumstances connected with 
Paul's first visit to Jerusalem after his con- 
version next (ix : 26, 30) invite a glance. 
When Paul reached that city, he did not 
report himself to any primate in command, 
but sought to join himself unto the body of 
believers ; but they, knowing what he had 
been of old, and seemino; to fear that his 
alleo:ed conversion mio;ht be a feint, were 
suspicious of him, and drew back, until Bar- 
nabas — a neighbor by birth, and who seems 
to have had a previous acquaintance with 
him, awakening confidence — indorsed him 
to the apostles ; as the result of which, all 
seem to have been satisfied. And yet it was 
" the brethren," and not the apostles, which 
'' sent him forth " to Tarsus. 

8. The next succeeding verse (ix : 31). 
offers one of those bits of indirect testimony 
which lawyers so much value. '' Then," 
that is after the persecution which arose about 



33 



Stephen had subsided, " had the churches 
rest throughout all Judea and Galilee and 
Samaria," etc. This was exactly what would 
be said if the piinciples of Congregationalism 
w^ere then recognized and dominant; it was 
precisely what would be unnatural, and in- 
deed impossible, in any other state of things. 
Congregationally, every one of these local as- 
semblies of believers in those three provinces 
of Palestine was a church, each as fully and 
truly so as any ; and, in making reference to 
them, they would be so spoken of, as, in fact 
they always were ; as witness chapters xiii : 
1, XV : 4, xviii : 22, and xx : 17. But, by 
the Presbyterian or the Episcopal theory, 
these were only separate branches of the 
ONE CHURCH, and must have been in that 
way described. This manner of speaking 
is, moreover, uniform. Paul (xv : 41) w^ent 
from Antioch after the contention between 
him and Barnabas, "- through Syria and 
Cilicia, confirming the churches ;''^ and as 
the result of his labors, with those of Silas 
[xvi: 5], were '-'' the churches e^td^dY\^\\ed. \n 
the faith." So obvious is the Congregation- 



34 



allsm of this manner of record, that the 
Roman-Catliolic authors of the Rhelms ver- 
sion (A.D. 1582) seem to have thought it 
important to mis-translate the first of these 
texts, and rendered it, '' the chvrch truely 
through al levvrie and GaUlee and Samaria 
had peace," etc. But even they did not 
venture to tamper with the other two. 

9. A circumstance connected with the 
preaching of Peter at the house of the pagan 
Cornelius at Cesarea (x : 48) should not 
be overlooked. This centurion sends for the 
apostle to come from Joppa, gathers together 
his kindred and friends to hear him, and, in 
this very hearing, he and they so cordially 
welcome the truth by faith that the Holy 
Spirit at once, and with Pentecostal signs, 
was granted them, — the only instance where 
it preceded baptism ; clearly to remove every 
scruple as to an act then so novel as the re- 
ception of pagans to the Christian church. 
Whereupon Peter, assuming that no man 
could forbid the baptism with water of those 
who had been already baptized by the Spirit, 
" gave directions (nQooxaaaco — pros-tasso^ 'to 



35 



arrange at a place ') tliat they should be bap- 
tized in the name of the Lord." What leans 
towards Congregational principles, and away 
from all hierarchal notions, here, is that 
Peter, who is the only "- authorized " official 
named as being there, did not baptize these 
people himself, but left it to be done by some 
of the unofficial Christians who were present 
(apparently of the '' certain brethren from 
Joppa," who had accompanied him) ; and 
that the fact was considered of importance 
enough to be set down. 

10. The controvei^y at Jerusalem which 
followed this baptism of Gentiles (xi : 1-18) 
next claims our notice. What took place at 
Cesarea was soon heard of at the holy city, 
and excited attention there ; and, when 
Peter next went there, it led to discussion. 
Even the primitive churches, being com- 
posed of imperfect men, Avere themselves 
imperfect ; and it was not strange, that, in the 
welding of the new Christian upon the old 
Mosaic dispensation, some who had been 
zealous Jews should unduly cling to Judaism, 
even to the formation of a party '' of the 



36 



circumcision " in the church at Jerusalem. 
This party were dissatisfied with Peter's 
report of what he had done, and contended 
with him for so disreo-ardino; the old Mosaic 
law as to eat with uncircumcised heathen. 
Justice to them requires the remark, that it 
does not seem to have troubled them that 
Peter had evangehzed Gentiles, but only 
that he had not first Judaized them by cir- 
cumcision, before Christianizing them by 
baptism. Peter replied by a frank statement 
of the way in which liis own scruples had 
been removed by his vision at Joppa, and 
by the descent of the Holy Spirit at Cesarea. 
This quieted all opposition, not merely, but 
excited the whole church to praise God that 
the gospel door of hope had been opened 
to the heathen, as well as to the Jews. 
Here, now, is no symptom of hierarchy, but 
every token of democratic brotherhood, and 
even of apostolic accountability to the asso- 
ciated body of believers.* 

* " The Hartford Churchman " says on this statement of 
ours, " As the ' prhnitive churclies ' were ' composed of imper- 
fect men,' they, in a very Congregational way, took exception 



37 



11. Next we have (xi : 22) the sending 
of Barnabas to Antiodi, on receipt at Jeru- 
salem of the tidings of the great reUgious 
awakening which was taking place at this 
Greek and Roman capital of Syria, as a con- 
sequence of the labors of lay Christians 
there. This sending was done, not by the 
bishop, nor by the apostles, but by (txxl^^cr/a 
— ekklesia) the whole church ; another sam- 
ple of the working of pure primitive Congre- 
gationalism. 

12. Next in the same chapter (xi : 29) 
we find the record of the action of these An- 
tiochean believers when the " great dearth " 
took place subsequently in Judea. Then, 
not the bishop nor the apostles, not even the 
elders, moved in the matter ; but " the disci- 
ples, every man according to his ability, sent 

at St. Peter's conduct in the matter of Cornelius; but we 
cannot quite agree that this act of the Judaizers is held up as 
a model to us." Our grateful acknowledgments are due for 
this conce-?sion as to the non-Episcopal facts of this case; and 
we only need add, that what we are especially searching for 
now is the fact of the kind of politj^ actually existing in 
apostolic times. That being settled, we are willing to leave 
all concerned to draw their own inferences as to how far 
what they did was intended to be " a model to us. *' 



38 



somewhat for aid : " and they sent it " unto 
the brethren ; " although Barnabas and Saul 
placed it in the hands of " the elders," as 
it was perfectly natural and Congregational 
for them to do. 

13. Next we come (xiii : 1-3) to the 
commission of Barnabas and Saul as foreic^n 
missionaries by the church at Antioch. To 
that church, while assembled with worship 
and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, '' Set apart 
for me Barnabas and Saul, to the work to 
which I have called them." Then they 
fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on 
them, and sent them off. Here the Holy 
Spirit spake to the body of believers, not to 
any bishop or primate ; and the body obeyed 
and acted. Tlie command, says Lange, '' is 
not addressed solely to the teachers, but 
rather to the whole cono-re oration ; " and '' the 
immediate consecration and dismission of the 
two men demonstrate that the congregation 
had clearly understood the revelation of the 
Spirit. The believers laid their hands on 
both, commended them to God, and sent 
them forth." 



39 



Congruous witli this, and precisely re- 
sponsive to it, was the procedure of these 
men on their return from this mission. 
When, after their journeys, trials, and suc- 
cesses (xiv : 27), they came back to Antioch, 
no mention is made of any statement to any 
hierarch ; but we are told they called togeth- 
er the luhole multitude of the churchy and 
(^dvayye)l(o — ananggello, '' to report back ") 
gave them an account of what tliey had done, 
and of what had been done by their means. 
Could any thing be more purely consistent 
with the Congregational way ; more incon- 
sistent with any other ? 

15. The next chapter (xv : 1-31) de- 
scribes the consultation at Jerusalem. It 
was the old question of Judaism up again at 
Antioch ; and that church, to reach some 
safe decision upon it, sent up delegates — 
"• Paul and Barnabas, and certain others " 
— to lay the subject before the mother- 
church. When they arrived, they were 
welcomed by the church and by the apostles 
and elders; and, in '' a congregational meet- 
ing" (ian^^), made a full report of their 



40 



woi'k among tlie Gentiles. Then certain 
Judeo-Pharisaic members objected against 
this influx of uncircumcised heathen into the 
Christian church, and on that objection they 
seem to have adjourned. Another similar 
meeting was held {Lange says, " Luke speaks 
only of the apostles and elders ; but it dis- 
tinctly appears, from verses 12, 22, etc., that 
the congregation was also present, not 
merely for the purpose of listening, but also 
of co-operating in deciding tlie question ") as 
the result of which, '' it pleased the apostles 
and elders, loith the ivhole church^^ to send 
delegates to Antioch, bearing a letter of 
advice. That letter of advice began by 
recoo-nizino; the church as co-ordinate in 
power witli the apostles, and gave the 
advice expressly as having '' seemed good 
unto us being assembled (^6[xodv(jiad6v — hojno- 
tkumadon^ " all together,") that is, by unani- 
mous vote (so Lange^ Bengel^ Stier^ and 
Meyer), The bearers of the letter went 
to Antioch ; but they gathered the church 
together before they delivered (to them) that 
epistle. And, after these messengers had 



41 



made their visit, they were sent back to 
Jerusalem in peace from '' the brethren." 

It would be difficult to conceive of proce- 
dures more laboriously calculated to em- 
phasize the essential principles of Congrega- 
tionalism, than these taking place under the 
eye of the apostles, and in the very presence, 
and with the active co-operation, of that 
James who is claimed to have been the first 
primate of Jerusalem. 

16. The letter of commendation (xviii : 
27) which ApoUos carried from the church 
at Ephesus to that at Corinth, was a Con- 
gregational one, given, not by the Bishop, 
but by the brethren. 

17. PauFs sending from Miletus to the 
elders of the church at Ephesus (xx : 17) 
was a Congregational procedure. It would 
be impossible for the whole church at 
Ephesus to take the journey of some thirty 
miles to meet him, so he sent (as we should 
say) for their pastors and deacons, — their 
chief men ; and they responded to his call. 
If Paul had been an Episcopalian, or a 
Methodist, or a Presbyterian, he would have 



42 



used different languao;e, and have sent for 
somebody else. 

18. And his address to them (xx : 28) 
was in the spirit of our system too. These 
men were elders, that is pastors, etc., of the 
churcli at Ephesus. He sent for them under 
that name. Yet now he calls them "' bishops," 
— showing that the only sense which he put 
upon that word was the Congregational, and 
not the hierarchal one. " Take heed," he 
says, '' to yourselves, and to all the flock in 
which the Holy Ghost has set you as QUpis- 
kopous) BISHOPS " ! What a strange High 
Churchman Paul was, to call these men 
'' bishops " ! — half a score (more or less) of 
bishops in one local church ! Even Episco- 
palian Dean Alford says, " The English 
version has liardly dealt fairly in this case 
with the sacred text, in rendering Episho- 
pous ' overseers,' whereas it ought there, as 
in all other places, to have been ' bishops,' 
that the facts of elders and bishops having been 
originally and apostolically synonymous might 
be apparent to the ordinary English reader, 
which now it is not." 



43 



19. The little incidental allusions on the 
journey to Jerusalem, the record of which 
follows, are alike surcharo-ed with Cono;reo;a- 
tional likelihoods. Paul was ''brouo;ht on 
his way " (xxi : 5), not by any bishop or 
potentate, but by "all;" he ''saluted" 
(xxi : 7) not the bishop of Ptolemais, but 
'' the brethren ; " when, with his com- 
panions, he reached Jerusalem (xxi: 17), 
it was not the bishop, nor the rector, but 
''the brethren," who received him gladly ; 
and at Jerusalem he reported not to James 
as primate, but (xxi : 18) to him with " all 
the elders ; " and " they glorified the Lord," 
and immediately proceeded to make arrange- 
ments for subsequent action, when " the 
multitude " should come together. 

20. And so the faint traces of church 
order and life which show themselves, as, 
from this point the narrative sweeps into a 
swifter current of personal Pauline history, 
are of the same description to the end. 
They " found brethren " (xxviii : 14), not a 
hierarch, at Puteoli ; and (xxviii : 15) " the 



44 



brethren " came as far as Appii Forum and 
Tres Tabernae to meet them. 

But these twenty instances are all on one 
side. Is there absolutely nothing on the 
other ? Yes : we have found exactly five 
texts in the Book of the Acts, which, unex- 
plained, have a hierarchal look ; and these 
we will now consider. 

1. We learn (viii : 14) that the apostles 
sent Peter and John unto Samaria to labor. 
But this, in terms, is fatal to the Romanists' 
assumption of Peter's primacy ; and there is 
no evidence that the act was in any sense an 
ecclesiastical one, or any thing other than 
might naturally have been looked for as the 
result of their mutual consultations, as to the 
best way of fulfilling the Lord's last command. 

2. There is a little sound of Episcopacy 
(xii : 4) in our version's saying ''intend- 
ing, after Easter^ to bring him forth to the 
people." But this is a mistranslation. The 
Greek is paseha^ which means " the Pass- 
over ; " and not only Wiclif, but even the 
Rheims version, so renders it : " meaning 
after the Pasche to bring him forth." 



45 



3. A much stronger passage (xvi : 4) is 
that which makes it appear that Paul and 
Silas, in their second tour among the churches 
of Asia Minor, "- dehvered to them the de- 
crees for to keep, that were ordained of the 
apostles and elders which were at Jerusa- 
lem." But here, if not positive mistransla- 
tion, is a distortion of the meaning, in the 
direction of a hierarchy. The reference is 
simply to the course of conduct which the 
previous chapter shows had been agreed upon 
unanimously by the apostles, eiders, and 
whole church at Jerusalem. The word trans- 
lated decrees (^dogmata) means also " ad- 
vice ; " * and such here it was. Wiclif hit 
the meaning exactly when he translated it, 
'^ Gave them to keep the teachings that were 
judged of the apostles and elder men that 
were at Jerusalem." 

4. In like manner the remark of James, 
which in our version sounds very like that 
of a bishop (xv : 19), '' Wherefore my sen- 

* The Greek noun 66yiia {dogma) is derived from the 
verb 6oKeD {doked) to thuik. Hence the primary meaning of 
doyiia is " that which seems true to one." 



46 



tence is^^^ Wiclif reads, '^ Of wliicli thing I 
judge;'' as also even the Romanist Rheims 
version: " For the which cause I judge ; " the 
real sense being simply this : '' Wherefore my 
opinion is," * — which makes it a truly Con- 
gregational utterance from him.f 

5. The only remaining passage, and the 
only one really deserving of the slightest 
serious consideration, or demanding any 
special carefulness of exposition for its cor- 
rect understanding, is that (xiv : 23) which 
seems to say of Paul and Barnabas, on the 
first missionary journey, as they passed 
througli Asia Minor, that ''they had or- 
dained them elders in every church." But, 
whatever the passage does mean, it cannot 
mean that. Nothinix is said about '' ordina- 

* ""^vw KplvD^ — l^ for my part, without dictating to 
others, judge, i.e., decide as my opinion." — Flaclcett, in loco. 

t " The ChurchmaiV s comment on this is, '' The ' dog- 
mata' liad the force of decrees, and icere something more 
than ' advisory.' " If any proof of this assertion had occurred 
to it, we may rest assured it would have been produced; and 
we are therefore grateful for this concession that there exists no 
better evidence of the Episcopacy of this transaction, than 
the emphatic opinion of an Episcopalian living eighteen 
centuries after! 



47 



tlon" in the Greek. It is declared that Paul 
and Barnabas (^x^moiov/^aavreg — cheirotone- 
sanies^ which means '' to choose by voting 
with the hand," and hence, "- to elect or ap- 
point in any way,") either themselves elected, 
or superintended the election by each church, 
of elders. Lange explains it thus : '• The 
expression suggests the thought that the 
apostles may have appointed and superin- 
tended a cono;reo;ational election." Tvndale 
translated it, ''And wdien thev had ordened 
them elders by eleccion in every congrega- 
cion." Cranmer (A.D. 1539) and the 
Geneva version render it in the same way. 
But King James's translators, in the interest 
of Episcopacy, left out the vital words, '' by 
election." If, now, we read it as they did, 
we put a hierarchal sense upon the sentence 
which is not honest, and we throw the verse 
out of all natural connection with the sys- 
tem of church affairs then prevailing — if we 
take the testimony of the entire remainder 
of the Acts of the Apostles. If we even 
read it " appointed " elders, w^e commit Paul 
and Barnabas to a course nowhere else hinted 



48 



at. But if we read it " superintended the 
election of elders in every church," we treat 
the verb fairly as to its etymology and his- 
tory, and we translate the text into symmetry 
with the entire spirit of the book in which it 
has its phice. Surely, then, no reasonable 
exegete can fail to reach the result that we 
have nothing here exceptional to what we 
have seen to be the unvarying testimony of 
the book. 

There is, then, for there can be, but one 
conclusion. The S3^stem of church polity 
existing in the beginning, and manifesting 
itself through the Acts of the Apostles, was 
essential Congregationalism.* Not yet fully 

* The Churchman says, "The whole argument of The 
Congregationalist ' amounts to just this: that the apostles, 
■vvhom our Lord commissioned and sent, were without power 
to do any thing but advise ; that they had no sooner set about 
their work, than it was taken out of their hands by the lay 
members whom they had just converted; and that they never 
presumed afterwards to interfere or direct. . . . Such a thee ry 
will not hold water for five seconds." Begging the Church- 
man's pardon, and, not being immersion ists, caring very 
little about the relations of our argument to water, we beg to 
insist, that what we gather from the New Testament is, that 
the apostles were divinely commissioned to act towards the 
young churches which they founded, precisely as a wise parent 



49 



developed, its germs were those of ecclesi- 
astical democracy, in sharp, continual, and 
irreconcilable hostility with spiritual aris- 
tocracy or monarchy. 

acts towards his children, — not keep them under authority 
permanently, but train them by authority, oversight, advice 
and every possible influence of affection, to become, as soon 
as possible, competent to the assumption (under God) of the 
entire responsibility of their own affairs. 



CHAPTER III. 

CONGREGATIONALISM IN THE EPISTLES. 

Having seen how the foundations of our 
democratic pohtj were laid in the teachings 
of Christ himself, as recorded in the Gos- 
pels, and the structure elaborated by the 
apostles under the supervision of the Holy 
Ghost, we are now prepared to inquire, in 
conclusion, what light, incidental or direct, 
is thrown upon the subject in the various 
Epistles. 

We find it most convenient to classifv the 
testimonies of the Epistles on this subject 
under the following heads, which include 
them all ; viz., (1) texts which refer to a 
church, or to churches, in a way scarcely 
explicable except on the Congregational 
theory ; (2) those which clearly contemplate 
and advise such a brotherhood as can exist in 
its fulness only in the Congregational way ; 
(3) those which seem to be founded upon 
the supposition that the churches were of a 

50 



51 



democratic character ; (4) those which speak 
of church oiBcers in a manner natm^al only 
to CongregationaHsm ; (5) those which re- 
quire or refer to church action possible only 
to our polity ; and (6) those which seem to 
suggest another system, but which, when 
justly explained, are really corroborative of 
all the rest in suo-crestino: ours. 

1. The use which is habitually made of 
the word lyiylrioia (^ekldesia) in the singular 
and plural, is such as is consistent only with 
the Cono;reo:ational doctrine of the church. 
In more than fifty instances in the Epistles, 
the term is used under circumstances clearly 
implying a single congregation of believers. 
The churches at Cenchrea, Corinth, Philippi, 
Laodicea, Thessalonica, in the house of Pris- 
cilla and Aquila, in the house of Nymphas, 
and in the house of Philemon, are specifically 
named, and one is implied at Hierapolis ; 
besides the general mention of the churches 
^'of the Gentiles," ''of Christ," ''of God," 
"of Galatia," "of Asia," "of Macedonia," 
and " in Judaea ;" besides more indefinite 
allusions to " the churches," and " all 



52 



churches:" and in the Apocalypse we read 
of the church at Ephesus, at Smyrna, at 
Pergamos, at Thyatira, at Sardis, at Phila- 
delphia, and at Laodicea ; while these are 
grouped, and written of collectively, as " the 
seven churches of Asia." On a careful 
examination, moreover, it becomes obvious, 
that, beyond question, some of these churches 
were so near that they might readily have 
been fused into one, if it had not been 
thought expedient to include in a single 
church only those believers who could regu- 
larly and conveniently unite in the enjoyment 
of its privileges, and the performance of its 
duties. For example, Cenchrea w^as the sub- 
urb and port of Corinth ; yet there were 
churches at both places. Hierapolis was 
visible from the theatre of Laodicea, and 
Colosse was near, some think directly be- 
tween, them ; while Nymphas appears to 
have lived in or near Laodicea, and it is 
almost certain that Philemon was a resident 
of Colosse. So that there is the strongest 
probability that these five churches — at 
Hierapolis, Laodicea, Colosse, and in the 



53 



houses of Nyniphas and Philemon — were all 
situated within a very short distance, proba- 
bly within sight of each other ; — near 
enough, at least, to demonstrate, by the fact 
of their individual existence, that it was the 
aim of the apostles to include within a given 
ekklesia^ C)nly those members who could well 
and habitually share its privileges, and carry 
on its labors. This is not only Congrega- 
tionalism, but this employment of the term 
" church " is inconsistent with any other poli- 
ty. " Its use," says the late Dr. Vaughan, '' as 
signifying the ministers of religion in distinc- 
tion from the people, or as embracing all the 
persons professing Christianity in a province 
or nation, is unknown to the Sacred Scrip- 
tures. We read in the New Testament of 
' the church at Jerusalem,' the ' church in 
the house of Priscilla and Aquila,' and of 
'- the churches in Judaea, Galatia,' etc. ; but 
we meet with no such phrase as ' the church 
of Judea,' or ' the church of Galatia.' This 
application of the term was reserved until 
the time when Christianity became estab- 



54 



Hshed as a part and parcel of the kingdoms 
of this world.*' 

2. We find in the Epistles a large number 
of texts which obviously contemplate, and 
seek to further, precisely such a spirit of 
equal brotherhood and co-working, and sucli 
mutual responsibility, as are peculiar to Con- 
gregationalism. Thrice repeated by Paul to 
three different churches (Rom. xii : 1-8 ; 1 
Cor. xii : 1-31 ; Eph. iv : 4-16), was the gen- 
eral symbol of a church as a body with 
many members, having not the same office 
nor the same gifts ; but yet with none less 
honorable than others, or less essential to the 
general work : so that the whole body, thus 
made up of fraternal parts, maketh increase 
by that which every joint supplieth. So also 
he commands every Roman believer (Rom. 
XV : 2) to " please his neighbor, for good 
ends, to build him up." [In the Pauline 
Epistles, where the sense seems to be im- 
proved thereby, we make use of the Cony- 
beare and Howson translation, against which 
Episcopalians surely ought not to object.] 
He is persuaded (xv : 14), that they are able 



55 



(( 



of [yourselves] to admonish one another ; " 
he exhorts " the brethren " (xvi : 17) to keep 
their eyes upon '' those who cause divisions, 
and cast stumbling-blocks in the way of others, 
contrary to the teaching which [they] have 
learned." So he exhorts the Corinthian 
^' brethren " (1 Cor.i : 10) " to shun disputes, 
and have no divisions, but to be knit together 
in the same mind and the same judgment." It 
is the only blemish which he suggests as exist- 
ing in the church at Philippi, that certain of 
its members were deficient in lowliness of 
mind, and were thus led into disputes and 
altercations with their brethren ; and so he 
says (ii : 2-4), " Be of one accord, filled with 
the same love, of one soul, of one mind. 
Do nothing in a spirit of intrigue or vanity ; 
but, in lowliness of mind, let each account 
others above himself. Seek not your private 
ends alone ; but let every man seek likewise 
his neio;hbor's P:ood." 

He beseeches " the holy and faithful 
brethren " at Colosse (Coloss. iii : 16) to 
" teach and admonish one another, in all 
wisdom." Peter told the Christians of the 



56 



churches of Asia (1 Pet. ii : 9, 10) that 
they, having been chosen out of the world, 
were a royal priesthood, a separated and lioly 
people, a purchased company, to the end 
that they should publish abroad the virtues 
and perfections of God and Christ ; and (iii : 
8) he finally exhorts them to be especially 
mindful of their fraternity of spirit. Paul 
told the " brethren " of the churches of 
Galatia (Gal. vi : 2) to "• bear one another's 
burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ ; for 
if any man exalts himself, thinking to be 
somethino; when he is nothino; he deceives 
himself with vain imaginations ;" and he ad- 
monished the Hebrews (xiii : 1) to '' let 
brotherly love continue ;" he informed the 
Romans (xv : 25, 26, 31) that the brethren 
of Macedonia and Achaia had '' willingly un- 
dertaken to make a certain contribution for 
the poor among the saints in Jerusalem ; " and 
he asked their prayers that his service in car- 
rying this contribution might '' be favorably 
received " by the brethren there. Very 
touching, also, is the declaration of John (1 
John V : 16), — which implies the lodgement 



57 



of responsibility for those churcli-members 
who wander, not in any functionary, but in 
the body of the brotherliood, — that if any 
brother " see his brother sinnino; a sin not 
unto death (that is, one which does not ab- 
solutely annul fellowship with Christ, and 
cut off faith in him), he shall ask, and gain 
for him life," etc. 

3. There is a class of passages in the Epis- 
tles which seems tacitly to assume that the 
state of things was what it would naturally 
be, only if these apostolic churches then ex- 
is tin o; were Conorreorational ones. Amono; 
these are the first, the salutatory, verses of 
almost every Epistle. They are not addressed 
to the primates of the churches under any 
name, but almost always to the brotherhoods 
themselves, precisely as Congregational let- 
ters-missive are now addressed. That to the 
Romans is "to all God's beloved, called to 
be Christians, who dwell in Rome ; " the first 
to the Corinthians, " to the Churcli of God 
at Corinth ;" the second, " to the Church of 
God which is in Corinth, and to all Christians 
throughout the whole Province of Achaia ; " 



58 



that to the Galatlans, " to the churches of 
Galatia ; " that to the Ephesians (or, as many 
hold, the Laodiceans), " to the Christians 
who are at Ephesus " [Laodicea] ; that to the 
Colossians, " to the holy and faithful brethren 
in Christ who are at Colosse ; " those to the 
Thessalonians, ^' to the Church of the Thes- 
salonians." The others were either more 
general in their scope, like that to the He- 
brews, which is rather a treatise than an 
Epistle, and was addressed to the class of 
Christianized Hebrews as such, rather than 
to the churches of which they were mem- 
bers ; and Peter's, which was a general 
letter to all who had " obtained like precious 
faith : " or more specific, like Paul's to Tim- 
othy, Titus, and Philemon, — with the single 
exception of that to the Philippians, which 
is addressed '^ to all Christians in Christ Jesus 
who are at Philippi, with the bishops and dea- 
cons, "^^ * The reason of this addition does 

* *' It is singular that the presbyters and deacons should 
be mentioned separately in the address of this Epistle only. 
It has been suggested that they had collected and forwarded 
the contribution sent by Epaphroditus." — Conybeare and 
Howson^ in loco. 



59 



not appear ; but it does appear that this 
could not have been an Episcopal church at 
Philippi, or it would have had but one bish- 
op ; and also that the church ranked in Paul's 
eyes before its officers. 

So Peter appeals to " ^Ag brethren^'''' and 
seeks (2 Pet. iii : 1) '' to stir up [their] pure 
minds by way of remembrance," when he 
desires to forefend the cause from the danger 
of scoffers; and it is the " brethren " whom 
he is addressing when he says (1 Pet. iv : 
11), '' If any speak, let him speak as the ora- 
cles of God ; if any minister, let him do it 
as of the power which God bestoweth." It 
is the hierarchal claim that Timothy was a 
bishop; but Paul tells him (1 Tim. iv : 6) 
that ''if he puts the brethren in remem- 
brance of these things " (that is, the con- 
futation of various errorists which he has 
just been indicating), '' he will be a good 
servant of Jesus Christ." 

So what Paul says to the Thessalonian 
church (1 Thess. v : 12), in regard to the 
treatment which he desires them to give 
their elders, or pastors, is precisely what 



60 



would have been natural on the Congrega- 
tional, and to the last degree unnatural on 
any other, theory. '' I beseech you, brethren, 
to have due sympathy with those who are 
laboring among you ; who preside over you 
in the Lord's name, and keep you in mind 
of your duty. I beseech you to esteem 
them very exceedingly in love, for their 
work's sake." Quite akin in spirit to this is 
what the same apostle said to the Hebrews 
(xiii: 17), "• Render unto them that are your 
leaders obedience and submission ; for they, 
on their part, watch for the good of your 
souls, as those that must give account : that 
they may keep their watch with joy, and not 
with lamentation ; for that w^ould be unprofit- 
able for you." 

We do not claim that these passages can, 
of themselves, establish the doctrine of the 
democracy of the primitive churches ; only 
that they best comport with it, and furnish 
collateral evidence of weight, when that de- 
mocracy has been otherwise reasonably 
proved. 

4. The more direct references to the 



61 



officers of these cliurches establish the Con- 
gregationalism of these bodies. There are 
only two orders of church-officers spoken of 
in the Epistles ; viz. : (1) those who are m- 
discriminately called pastors (in the Apoca- 
lypse "angels"), teachers, presbyters (or 
elders), and bishops (or overseers) ; (2) 
deacons. That the first four names were 
difterent designations of the same office 
appears, first, from the fact that the same 
persons are called (Eph. iv : 11) pastors and 
teachers ; that the elders are (as 1 Tim. v : 
17) spoken of as the only officers besides 
deacons which the churches had, and hence 
must be the same as those elsewhere called 
pastors or teachers ; and that Paul (Acts 
XX : 28) expressly told the " elders " of tlie 
church at Ephesus that the Holy Ghost had 
made them ''bishops" of that flock: while 
Paul to Titus (i : 7) says the " elders " must 
be blameless, for the reason that " a bishop 
ought to be blameless," etc.; showing that 
he had the same persons in mind. Then, in 
the second place, precisely the same qualifi- 
cations (1 Tim. iii : 2-7 ; Tit. i : 6-10) are 



62 



demanded of pastors, teachers, elders, and 
bisliops. In the third place, the same duties 
are assigned to all : (1) to guide the church 
by counsel and authority (1 Tim. v: 17 ; 
Acts XX : 28) ; (2) to instruct the church 
(1 Tim. iii: 5; Tit. i: 9). And, in the 
fourth place, the fact that there is not a pas- 
sage in the New Testament which asserts, or 
justifies the assertion of, any superior func- 
tion on the part of the bishops, completes 
the proof that only two orders of officers 
were known to the churches of the New 
Testament, and that these were the pastors 
(elders, presbyters, bishops) and deacons of 
the Congregational churches of the present. 
Even Peter^ who Avas, if Romanists are 
right, the very chiefest of the Apostles, 
says (1 Pet. v : 1), '' The elders which are 
among you I exhort, ivho am also an elder.^^ 
Lange (Fronmiiller) says on this passage, 
'' After the apostolic age, the offices of 
bishop and elders were gradually separated. 
During the life-time of the apostles, the 
supreme direction of the churches was 



63 



wielded by them ; but they put themselves 
on a level with the elders." * 

One passage in this connection has given 
unauthorized comfort to our Presbyterian 
friends (ITim. v:17): "Let the elders 
tliat rule well be counted worthy of double 
honor, especially they who labor in the 
word and doctrine." But there is no lay- 
eldership here. Lange says, " No footsteps 
are to be found in any New-Testament 
church of lay-elders ; nor were there for 
many hundred years." These were simply 
associate pastors, some of whom paid special 
attention to the government of the church, 
while others were more given to the word 
and doctrine. And Paul commends those 
who performed their office well, as being 
worthy of a twofold honor.f 

* " These terms are used in the New Testament as equivalent, 
— the former {hnlGKOTcog) denoting (as its meaning of overseer 
implies) the duties, the latter (7Tpea(ivTepog) the rank, of the 
office." — Conyhenre and Howson^ chap. xiii. 

t Conybeare and Howson translate this verse, " Let the 
presbyters who perform their offices well be counted worthy 
of a twofold honor; especially those who labor in speaking 
and teaching." 

^'No footsteps are to be found, in any Christian church, of 



64 



But tliis reference to the two classes of 
pastors and deacons alone, with the assign- 
ment to them of precisely those functions 
which are usual to officers bearino; that name 
in democratic churches, is proof, of the 
verv strono;est kind, that the churches to 
which these Epistles were written w^ere 
democratic churches ; while the absence of 
all reference to a hierarchy is incidental 
evidence of the weio:htiest character that 
none existed until after the canon was closed, 
and our New Testament was completed as it 
stands. 

5. But perhaps the most convincing proof 
of the Congregationalism of the primitive 
churches which is furnished by the Epistles, 
is the illustrations which they give of the 
method of action pursued in those churches, 
and in connection with them. Paul (2 Cor. 
viii : 19) says that Titus "had been chosen 

lay-elders, nor were there for many hundred years. St. Paul, 
prescribing Timothy how he should stablish the church, 
passeth immediately from bishops and ministers of the word 
and sacraments to deacons, omitting these lay-elders, that are 
supposed to lie in the midst between them." ^i>r. Wash- 
burn, in Lange ( Van Oosterzee), in loco. 



65 



by the churches *' (of Macedonia) to accom- 
pany him in his journey ; and, farther on 
(v. 23), he calls him and the unnamed 
brother who was with him, " the mes- 
seno^ers of the churches," to the end of trans- 
mittino; the oift of the Macedonian churches 
to the church at Jerusalem. This was a pure- 
ly Congregational procedure ; and the attempt 
of Bishop Coxe, on the late occasion of the 
consecration of Dr. Huntifigton, to dignify 
this last text (which is the simple historic 
record of the fact that the two members of 
the Macedonian churches who had been 
chosen by those churches to carry, with 
Titus, their fraternal alms to the Corinth 
ians, went as delegates of those churches, and, 
in so doinn;, illustrated and honored their 
Christian profession) into some kind of a prop 
to the sj^stem of Episcopacy, fell but little 
short of positive absurdity. '' The persons 
are mentioned," says Lange (Kling), '' not 
as sent of the Lord in any sense, but simply 
as QuTtoaroXoi ty.'A.h]a i(Xiv — apostoloi ekklesioii) 
messengers of the churches with refer- 
ence to a single benevolent mission, or 

5 



66 



journey. It can surely have no reference 
here to a permanent office, and is used sim- 
ply as a common noun." 

So Paul's hint of the method of Timothy's 
setting apart to his ministerial work (1 Tim. 
iv : 14) by " prophecy, with the laying on of 
the hands of the elders " QrtQE&^vriQiov — pres- 
buteriou is translated '' elders " in the other 
two places in which it occurs in the New" 
Testament, and it would make the sense 
clearer so to translate it here) is as precise an 
account of the way in which the thousands 
of Cono;reo;ational ministers now at their 
work have been set apart, as our language 
could give. And, in like manner, James's 
direction (v : 14), " Is any sick among you ? 
let him call for the elders of the church, 
and let them pray over him," etc., whether it 
is to be taken of bodily, or of soul sickness, 
was a direction to the primitive churches 
more consonant with the Congregational, 
than any other polity. 

Specially to be noted, however, are the 
directions in regard to church discipline 
which the Epistles contain, wdiich agree with 



67 



what we have seen before to be the law of 
Christ, and which precisely accord with the 
Congregational way, but have no con- 
gruity with any other. Paul directs Titus 
(iii: 10) to ''put the brethren in mind," 
among other things, after one and a 
second admonition, to reject an heretical 
man. And he directed "- the brethren " of 
the Church of the Thessalonians (2 Thess. 
iii: 6) "in the name of the Lord Jesus 
Christ to withdraw [themselves] from every 
brother who walks disorderly ; " and (verses 
14,15), ''if any man be disobedient to 
my written word, to mark that man, and 
cease from intercourse with him, that he 
mio:ht be brou2i:ht to shame ; but to count 
him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a 
brother," — counsel which fits the Congre- 
gational interpretation of Christ's law of 
church discipline, with absolute exactness. 

Moreover, Paul gives the Corinthians ex- 
plicit instructions in the same line of proce- 
dure (1 Cor. t: 4,5,13), and directs them, 
when gathered together in the church as- 
sembly in the name of the Lord Jesus, to 



68 



deliver over to Satan a certain gi'oss of- 
fender, " that his spirit may be saved in the 
day of the Lord Jesus ; " and adds, " From 
amongst yourselves ye shall cast out the evil 
person." And, in his Second Epistle (ii : 6), 
he refers back to the same case, and to the 
church's compliance with his command, and 
says, " For the offender himself, this punish- 
ment, which has been inflicted on him hy the 
sentence of the majority " (so Conybeare and 
Howson),* is sufficient without increasing 
it." We undertake to say that it is simply 
impossible for our Episcopalian, Methodist, 
or Presbyterian brethren to harmonize this 
act of the majority of the brethren of the 
church at Corinth — which was exactly the 
carrying-out of the rule of the eighteenth of 
Matthew, and which Paul first advised, and 
then comments on as "sufficient" — with 
their theories, or practice, of church govern- 
ment. 

6. It remains only to glance, in conclusion, 

* " The Tz'keioveg^ by whom the punishment had been in- 
flicted, could not have been the eldership, but the majority 
of the church at Corinth." — Lange {Kling}^ in loco. 



69 



at a cluster of two or three texts, which ap- 
pear to contain some hierarcliic leaning, 
that we may see how entirely, after all, those 
passages coincide in spirit with all that have 
been already examined. 

One (1 Cor. vii : 17) our version trans- 
lates, '' And so ordain I in all churches." 
This seems to put Paul into a position of 
primacy, which he never dreamed of claim- 
ing. What he said was, " So (^biaxdaaoiiai 
— diatassomai) in all the churches." '' Dia- 
tassomaV'^ means simply " to put in order," 
'' to arrange." * It is the same verb which 
he used (1 Cor. xi : 84) to express '' The 
rest will I set in order when I come." And 
it means here simply, '' That is the arrange- 
ment which I favor, in all the churches." 
Wyclif renders it, " As I teche in alle 
chirchis ; " and even the Romanist Rheims' 
translators give it, " As in al churches I 
teach." Our version distorts the same verb 

* Lange (Kling) thus amends the translation of the same 
verb in another place of the same epistle (xvi: 1): "Now, 
concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given or- 
der to {arranged throughout, — dtera^a) the churches of Gala- 
tia, even so do ye." 



70 



with the like impropriety, in another text 
also (1 Cor. xvi : 1), where Paul is made to 
say, '' As I have given order to the churches 
of Galatia." Its meaning there is the sane 
as here. 

Another passage is (1 Cor. xi : 2) where 
Paul is represented by our version to com- 
mand, '' Keep the ordinances^ as I delivered 
them to you ; " which has a look of authority, 
as of a ruling outside of the church. The 
Greek word here is naqa^oaEig — para- 
doseis^ which is used thirteen times in the 
New Testament, and in every other instance 
is translated " traditions ; " as '' tradition 
of the elders," Mark vii : 3, etc. The 
Rheims version renders it here, '' As I haue 
deliuered vnto you, you keepe my pre- 
cepts." Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Geneva 
version agree together thus : '' Kepe the ordi- 
naunces^ even as I delyvered them to you." 

Still another text is that (Gal. ii : 9) 
which seems to intimate that '^ James, Ce- 
phas, and John, who seemed to be pillars," 
gave to Paul and Barnabas the right hand 
of fellowship to go to the heathen, as they to 



71 



the circumcision ; as if witli some showing 
of superior authority. A careful examina- 
tion, however, removes any such look. The 
fact simply was, that, as the result of mutual 
advisement as to tlie best disposal of the 
Evangelic forces at command, it was mutu- 
ally agreed that Paul and Barnabas should 
labor amoncr the Gentiles, and James and 
Peter and John among the Jews ; and, as we 
may colloquially say, " they shook hands on 
that ; " "" for the structure of the Greek seems 
to make the going of the one party to the 
circumcision, as true and near a sequence of 
this symbol of fellowship, as the going of the 
other to the heathen. 

A class of passages remains, which, it has 
been claimed, " recognize an Episcopate as in 
being, and give directions as to well-known 
acts ; " such, for example, as Paul's direction 
to Timothy (1 Tim. v : 22) to " lay liands 
suddenly on no man;" of which the 
Hartford Churchman says, ''No wrenching 
will twist these words into harmony with the 
Cono:reo;ational system." We do not doubt 
the honesty with which this was said ; but its 



72 



ignorance is marvellous and deplorable. It 
is .a part of the duty and privilege of every 
Congregational bishop to assist, when provi- 
dentially called to do so, in that ceremony of 
setting apart to the ministry on behalf of 
some church, by which ordination is effected 
now precisely as it was when the like " gift" 
was given to Timothy himself '' by prophecy, 
with the laying-on of the hands of the pres- 
bytery " (iv : 14). And it is his duty, as it 
was Timothy's, to exercise due deliberation 
in that act, and not hastily and unadvisedly 
to assist to place an unworthy man in a 
worthy place, and so become a " partaker of 
other men's sins." It is not easy, from a 
Congregational point of view, to see how such 
passages as this can be made to require any 
" wrenching," except it be to make them 
usable for the support of the Episcopate ; 
for wdiich purpose one would think they 
oug;ht to be twisted so far as to make them 
teach that Timothy was ordained by the 
hands of 07ie bishop, and not of a whole pres- 
bytery (equal band) of pastors. 

We are very ready to concede that there 



73 



are some texts which need for their true 
understanding, a careful consideration of the 
pecuUar relations of the apostles to the 
early churches, and which, in the absence of 
such consideration, may seem susceptible of 
some slight hierarchal tinge and tendency. 
Chief among these is that (Tit. i : 5) in 
whicli — as our version gives it — Paul says 
to Titus, " For this cause left I thee in Crete ; 
that thou shouldest set in order the things 
that are wanting, and ordain elders in every 
city, as I had appointed thee." The verse, 
literally translated, reads thus : " For this 
cause (that thou shouldest further bring into 
order the things that are wanting in respect 
to ecclesiastical organization, and especially 
appoint or secure the appointment of 
elders in every city, as I had arranged be- 
forehand) left I thee in Crete." Now, our 
Episcopalian friends insist that nothing can 
do justice to the intent and substance of this 
text, but their theory that Paul was a bishop 
after their pattern, and Titus a bishop of the 
same kind, and that both lorded it over God's 
heritage — which Peter forbade ; instead of 



74 



being ensamples to the flock — which he com- 
manded. 

Now, the Congregational theory provides 
for a special authority, as well as leadership, 
on the part of the apostles, and so exactly 
meets all the requisitions of these passages ; 
without flying in the face, in so doing, of all 
the rest of the New Testament, as the Epis- 
copalian explanation necessarily does. The 
apostles were missionaries, wdth an extraordi- 
nary training, inspiration, and authority, 
peculiar to themselves. They did rule these 
feeble primitive churches, just as our modern 
missionaries have ruled, for a time, the infant 
churches which they have founded on heathen 
ground. They did so ex 7iecessitate rei^ — 
because that was inevitable under the circum- 
stances ; just as the new settler lives in a 
log-cabin a little while, not because that is his 
theory of domestic architecture, but because 
that is the best he can do for the first year ; 
just as the father guides the tottering steps 
of his first-born in its amazing initial excur- 
sions from one side of the room to the other, 
because that is the best way of teaching it to 



75 



walk, and not because he proposes to have the 
child walk In that manner at maturity, and 
throuo;h life. Paul's directions to Timothy 
and Titus — his converts — are almost pre- 
cisely such as are natural, and have been fre- 
quent, in the history of our own Congrega- 
tional missionaries of to-day, in almost those 
same remons. The churches were what we 
now call mission-churches, and their pastors 
(elders) were what we now call native pas- 
tors.* And, granting all of authority which 
this theory naturally brings to the explana- 
tion of the circumstances of the churches 
founded by the apostles, we gain apt and 

* The ruling spoken of in the New Testament Ls a thing 
understood in the mission-churches of our day (though per- 
haps not exactly in the ancient form), where pastoral author- 
ity is just as needful in the infancy of these churches, as 
parental authority is in the early years of a family Among 
the churches on the Hawaiian Islands, for instance, the 
missionaries felt it necessaiy to exercise authority in the na- 
tive churches for a course of years ; and what of authority 
remained in the year 1863, and was deemed to be still neces- 
sary^, was then transferred to the associations and presbytery, 
the former intending to relinquish it to the local churches, as 
soon as the native pastorate had made advances to render 
it a safe deposit." — Di\ Rufus Anderson in " Congregationalist,^^ 
4 Aug., 1865. 



76 



abundant explanation of these, in a sense ex- 
ceptional, texts, and do no violence to the 
essential Congregational spirit which satu- 
rates and characterizes the New Testament 
as a whole. 

There is one remarkable claim which has 
been put forth by the Hartford Church- 
man^ which seems to deserve a word of 
notice here. So far as we can understand 
it, it amounts to this ; viz., that large parts 
of the "other things which Jesus did" — 
wdiich if they should be written every one, 
John (xxi : 25) suggested, would fill so 
many books that the world could not contain 
them — were oral directions upon the subject 
of Episcopacy ! This fulness of viva voce 
utterance to the apostles, it thinks, accounts 
for the little that is put down in the New 
Testament ; while it urges, that, being from 
Christ, it is just as imperative as the written 
w^ord, and deposited its force in the traditions 
of the Church, which we are bound to re- 
ceive. To this ingenious theory, it seems to 
be quite sufficient to reply, that oral utter- 
ances in the ears of the apostles, w^hich made 



77 



them act as Coiigreo-ationalists, — as we 
have seen In their Acts and Epistles that 
tliey did, — must have been Congregational 
in their tenor ; so that if this argument from 
'• tradition " is worth any tiling, it goes to 
support the democratic, and not the hier- 
archic polity. 

This closes our examination. We have 
passed in review the principal allusions, 
nearer or more remote, in the Epistles, to the 
subject of church government, as before in 
the Gospels and the Acts. We have found 
that they contain references to the local 
church and to the churches, which it is diffi- 
cult to explain unless those bodies then ex- 
isting were Congregational in form ; that they 
clearly contemplate and advise such a fra- 
ternity as can only ba germane to Congrega- 
tionalism ; that they, in many places, seem 
to take for granted the Congregationalism of 
all churches ; that they treat of church offi- 
cers as Congregationalists only naturally and 
consistently can do ; that they refer to and 
require church action which only Congrega- 
tionalists can self-consistently and fully per- 



78 



form ; and that the very few which seem to 
suggest another system do so in appear- 
ance only, and are exphcable upon a theory 
wliich saves their entire force without throw- 
ing them athwart the general tenor of the 
Word. 

This, indeed, was what we had every 
reason to expect. For it would have been 
surely very strange, if the Gospels had re- 
corded the foundation laid by Christ for a 
democratic church government, and the 
Acts of the Apostles had made it clear, that, 
under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the 
apostles and early Christians, in point 
of fact, had established Congregational 
churches, and then the practical letters of 
the same apostles, in the years immediately 
subsequent, had ignored them, or implied a 
different and adverse system. It was most 
natural that it should be as it is, and that 
the whole New Testament should cast its ab- 
solute weio-ht, without even the deduction and 
drawback of a single irreconcilable counter 
passage, for the democratic polity, in distinc- 
tion from, and in opposition to, those aristo- 



79 



cratic and monarchic corruptions which came 
in in subsequent centuries, when the gold be- 
came dim, and the most fine gold was changed, 
and the world first invaded, and then con- 
quered and assimilated, the church. 



CHAPTER IV. 

CONCLUSION. 

The sons, lineal and spiritual, of the 
Plymouth men — the Congregationalists of 
the present time in the United States — do, 
then, distinctly and broadly claim (as they in- 
tend and hope, in due charity towards all), tliat 
the Pilgrim Church polity is the polity of the 
New Testament. They do claim to be the 
nearest and faithfullest representatives of 
the churches of the time of the apostles. 

They claim, that as Jesus Christ was the 
head of His church so lono; as He remained on 
earth, and besides Him there was no superi- 
ority and no ruling, but all were equal 
brethren, so it was His intent to remain, after 
His ascension, its invisible but real and only 
ruler ; ruling through the influences of His 
Spirit upon the broad brotherhood, whose 
offices should be few and simple, and these 
for service, and not for show and swav. 

They claim that the system of church 

80 



81 



government which was actually developed 
under Christ's one law (of discipline) and 
general oversight, and through the action 
and (in some cases, when needful) the 
ruling of the apostles, is proven by the 
whole tenor of the book of those apostles' Acts 
to have been essentially and germinantly 
democratic, in distinction from spiritual aris- 
tocracy and monarchy. 

They claim that all this, which is insepara- 
bly interwoven with the entire texture of 
the historic portions of the New Testament, 
finds natural and unanswerable indorsement 
from its preceptive portions, so that Gospels, 
Acts, and Epistles, are one in the averment 
that that democratic polity which is the 
Conorreo-ationalism of to-day, and which the 
Brownists rescued and revived from the rub- 
bish of the dark ages, was the polity of the 
times, the events, and the authors, of the New 
Testament. 

And so they believe that the Pilgrim 
Fathers were entirelv rio^ht in the views 
which made them pray for the success of 
their polity in these terms, — in Gov. Brad- 



82 



ford's words : '' That the trueth may pre- 
vaile, and the churches of God reverte to 
their ancient puritie, and recover their 

PRIMITIVE ORDER, LIBERTIE, AND BEW^TIE." 



r:> 



>3 



> >> 



> 






3» 






-■ ■ .)> » 

'>'.:>^' >i) 






>:!> 



i3J>J>3 












-^ >; 



Pj^>^>> 


0^ 


^>' 


o > 


K')y 


.:>:) 


> •> 


->> 


>-> 


3 


^_J:> 


i) 3 


'"> 


3 3 


^' ..> 


3 ;>. 


> y 


3 3 




3>:> 


-' . 


^ 3 






yy~y> 



v^o;3 ;:3-^-> ^^ ^. 
l^^s? --' ^ ^ ->^ 

^' .3!) >> 3) 3 3 -5,^ 



>J) J^ •''[)) 2> o > •) 






)5> '> J >1 









.3 ):)j 
33x) 

>5> 



>1^ 






:> > r 



> > > 



> o > ^^>> 









>:> : 

> » > .v> 

J> >>3 












